Standalone Poll: First Person Only?

[The real Zeus 0]

Definitely keep it the way it is now. I use 3rd person except when aiming. In real life you have a wider field of view, you can basically see your shoulders, and when standing you can see your body/legs. In 1st person, you can see your wrists.... That's it.

Now, if it can be made to have a realisitic perspective and FOV then that would be okay. But there are other things to deal with first, remember, it's coming out in an Alpha.

Also, you can't really look around corners. You can do similar to what you can do in real life, peek around corner. If you want to look, you have to get in a position where you can be killed easily anyway.

Also, in 1st person you should be able to see 360 degrees. Look over your shoulder, now your other shoulder. You can see the curve over your shoulder, but you can't see your back. Also, you can see 180 degrees directly behind you. It wouldn't be "realisitic" to only have 1st person, or 3rd person because both don't incorperate the necessary views to be "realistic"

[The real Zeus 0]

And all you discussing velocity and lift.

For the golf ball example, the golf ball with land with the same velocity that you hit it with initally. You hit it, the inital velocity, and gravity and air resistance slow it down and bring it downward, then in that arc it increases at a NEGATIVE velocity. For bullets, THEY DONT ARC! THEY DON'T HAVE LIFT! Bullets drop and spin, spin is due to the barrel design. DROP IS BECAUSE GRAVITY! GO READ ABOUT NEWTON!

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

once and for all: the head shaking effect can be turned off in the game options.

everyone finding excuses is just afraid of losing uber human fov. we all know how dayz is played with 3rd person. in CQB it's just a plain cheat and while running people keep scanning the area holding ALT which basicly creates almost 360° awareness all the time. this luxery is something that can only be found in arma and still people talk about it as if it's a known standard. you guys are just used to it and now you get defensive when people address it.

every successful PvP competitive shooter has 1st-person only for exactly this reason. it's unfair. combine with arma's alt-look around feature even more. in dayz people are just so sensitive about their gear that they fail to see that those inbuilt exploits degrade the game.

why not find a compromise?

- disable crosshairs entirely (on all servers)...to atleast make 3rdp less relevant in combat

- limit the camera movement when using ALT to xz axis only so you can't look as easily from roofs/over walls while you aren't visible at all

- bring the 3rd person camera much closer to the player to limit ALT+3rdp exploits

i would prefer 3rdp being totally removed but it seems this issue needs subtle balancing so all the crybabies don't die of fear looking around a corner in 1st person.

let's face it. dayZ is a competitive PvP game. and hiding, sneaking and finding good cover are big parts of it. why degrade it just because some people can't take change?!

[Admiral Skeybar 6]

The mod now has developed its own type of playerbase with their own expectations. Third person mode has simply become part of the main DAyZ playstyle, just look on YouTube and you can see evidence of this. And I don't see how people can have much of an advantage with third person in mid-combat, in order to aim properly you always have to aim down your sights anyway.

That being said, the real problem with third person view is the way so many people use it to gain an advantage, looking over walls and around corners without having to expose yourself.

Someone in this thread made the argument this wasn't an issue because you need to expose yourself leaving cover anyway. In most cases, this is far from the truth, often the one being observed doesn't even know he/she is being watched despite looking around every couple of seconds or so if someone is sneaking up on him/her. That's unrealistic and plain unfair in a game where awareness is quite important.

For the standalone, I would prefer the game to be first person only. I use third person myself in DayZ simply because I don't like the idea of someone else being able to have an advantage over me. But since I do play on first person-only servers now and then, rare as they are, I do find that it makes the game a more realistic and interesting experience. This is something most people are completely oblivious to as soon as they discover third person view. It also gives you the reassurance there is no one sitting on a rooftop or behind a corner secretly observing you, ready to strike. Thus my opinion on why it should be first person only in the standalone.

There are plenty of MMOs out there that are third person only, why can't it be the other way around for a change.

I should say though, certain improvements to the Field Of View changing buttons should be made for sure. The system right now is simply to clunky.

once and for all: the head shaking effect can be turned off in the game options

Good someone finally pointed that out.

[Trizzo 632]

As far as ballistics go, I'm glad Dallas posted such a simple "dummy" picture. Does that bullet not arc? If a bullet arcs, wouldn't that mean that the bullet rises, and drops? If you pointed that weapon parellel to the ground, would that change anything to the arc of the bullet? It wouldn't hit a "300m" target, as it suggests, but it would still rise, right? Not begin descending to the ground the moment it exits the muzzle.

There are MANY properties of ballistics, one of the most important being VELOCITY. Bullets don't lose velocity as soon as they exit the muzzle (suggested by Trizzo the Shooter/hunter), they actually gain velocity initially (bullet rise) and then from then on gradually begin to lose velocity (bullet drop) ... Oh what do I know... Dallas plays Arma 2 so he is an expert in weapons, and Mr. Trizzo thinks bullets only arc in a downward direction unless the muzzle is pointed up in the air.

Refer to this

Stop sounding indignant when your lying and wrong. I never said they only arc downwards. Bullets who's arc is only downwards occours when they are fired parallel to the ground. I was hoping to point out that bullets don't generate their own "lift" or as you say "rise". The only way they make an upwards arc is when the bore is aimed upwards. The bore is aimed upwards because the optics/sights changed the angle of the rifle.

The top picture has a rilfe sighted in 200m. Whats happening is the bore is pointed upwards becuase the shooter changed the sights on a rifle for 200m. The bullet "rises" not becuase it generates it's own lift but because the rifle is pointed "upwards". The bullet forms its arc and hits the target.

The second picture shows what doesn't happen when you fire. A bullet does not rise, in an arc, above the point of the muzzle for no reason. The bullet in that exmple would make an immediate downwards arc because the bore axis is flat. A bullet cannot rise above that axis on its own. It will leave the barrel and begin its downward arc. If the bore axis was aimed any higher than that line it would make an upwards arc. This is pretty easy stuff.

So yes a bullet fired from a riflle whos bore is parralell to the ground will form an immediate downward arc with no lift above the point of the muzzle.

You all fail to realize that bullets are designed to be aerodynamic and with increase speed creates lift. You all have a disregard to physics. It's why two points on your zeroing match (25m/300m) but anything inbetween is off. Ie, the same sight picture on a 150m target will hit ABOVE the aim point.

Also, the M16 is designed to hit a 300m target. Barrel length, round choice, etc. The gun can be completely parallel to the ground and hit a 300m target, and when shooting at a 600m target there is only a slight change in the elevation knob. You don't have to raise the barrel 6 inches to hit a 600 m target... but I forgot, you all are experts.

You DO have to make huge corrections when shooting things like an M203 because the mass/weight/velocity of the round.

Did you just suggest that bullets generate their own lift? The is entirely wrong.

A rifle sighted in for 25m is not parrel to the ground, it's angle of the bore is aimed upwards even slightly. The bullet does not generate it's own lift to carry it 300m. It is because the angle of the bore at 25m is steep enough for the bullet to reach the 300m mark. Bullets work on very small margins of adjustment because of their inherent power but not because they generate their own lift.

And i'm pretty sure your ripping all of your ideas from a single M16 book or guide. They should explain that sighting in at 25m changes the angle of the bore upwards which gives the bullet arc.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Trizzo

[KetchupOnTheDog 41]

Gameplay> realism

You cannot see shit when in first person, when I am in a fire fight, I am 1st person, when trying to navigate, I use 3rd so I don't get a headache from the bobbing when you walk. I would like to remind u this is a game, not a simulator

you can turn headbob off...

[Penny Sue 77]

This is not really addressed to Dreygar, because he's most likely a 12 yo troll, because obviously no one on the internet can be this fucking stupid.

The first thing you learn about firearms is basic safety, the next thing you learn about rifles is basic ballistics. As soon as the projectile passes the muzzle, gravity starts to affect the bullet. The only thing the bullet does is spinning to maintain stability and that's by design of the barrel's rifling. The sights on a rifle actually points slightly downwards, which means whatever you sight, your barrel aims above. By raising your rear sight, you're raising the barrel, making the shooting arch higher and the distance longer.

Oh, no, he really is that stupid. I'd wager at least three times more stupid than he tries to portray himself.

Dude has obviously never owned a BB gun or a bow. I mention these because the BB and arrows actually move slow enough to where you can witness these physics in action. You also have to leverage this knowledge to be more accurate at even relatively short distances.

Kids these days... I guess they don't grow up with guns anymore... and look what we end up with?

[Dreygar (DayZ) 178]

I thought the moderator suggested we stay on topic? Though if you must... I still want to know how a weapon can hit a 25m target, and a 300m target but overshoot a 150m target if there is no rise in its trajectory. (Using the same sight picture, same zeroing, no adjustments.)

[Trizzo 632]

I thought the moderator suggested we stay on topic? Though if you must... I still want to know how a weapon can hit a 25m target, and a 300m target but overshoot a 150m target if there is no rise in its trajectory. (Using the same sight picture, same zeroing, no adjustments.)

There is a "rise", it just that the bullet does not make its own lift. The angle of the bore is king. Think of it as this. The bullet happens to hit the 25m mark as it is flying upwards into the sky. Then unable to escape gravity it falls and hits the 300m mark but not before overshooting the 150m mark.

1) Aiming at 25m =the bore is aimed upwards.

2) The bullet passes the 25m mark continues its upwards arc. It is however not traveling in a straight line. It is arcing.

3) The bullet has so much power behind it it rises above the 150m mark BUT NOW it looses power.

4) Its falls and hits a target at the 300m mark. Because for a m16 with X barrel legnth and X bullet standard issue the 25m 'point' and 300 point just so happen to line up almost exactlly.

CLICK bellow, it has everything in a good diagram from the US army (i think)

http://imageshack.us...picture1nt.png/

Yes i did have too and now I think I'm done! I was not initially clear what you meant by "25m 300m point is the same", now hopefully closure.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Trizzo

[Dreygar (DayZ) 178]

Fair enough Trizzo and everyone else. I stand corrected. Apologies given.

My intentions stay the same in that you would still need to make sight corrections in the game to shoot targets below your zeroing.

As far as the bore being upwards, I think that is grossly exaggerated. Weapon has always appeared horizontal, but I suppose it can be misleading to the naked eye when a small projectile is coming out going 3000fps, even the slightest of changes could greatly effect its trajectory.

[Trizzo 632]

My intentions stay the same in that you would still need to make sight corrections in the game to shoot targets below your zeroing.

Of course! I would love it to be more advanced as well.

As far as the bore being upwards, I think that is grossly exaggerated. Weapon has always appeared horizontal, but I suppose it can be misleading to the naked eye when a small projectile is coming out going 3000fps, even the slightest of changes could greatly effect its trajectory.

Agree but most diagrams exaggerate to illistrate the principle. Weapons appear horizontal but that is to the human eye which is notoriously finicky. I can tell you cannot see your adjustment in your sights unless you change it suddenly for many hundreds of meters difference.

As for a bullet the force behind it is nuts! The chamber pressure for an m16 is 50,000 psi? Chamber pressure is very hard to meassure...then we have the .223 itself 3000+ ft/s and more. Then add large distances, the most tiny error or adjustment is going to make a huge difference. I like to hold my figer up the furthest away wall in the room. Then I 'aim' 1cm to the left. I imagine walking in a straight line for both points and how far apart they would be over the course of 100 meters. Then I imagine it's a bullet traveling 600 meters or more.

The slightest things effect bullets, hot weather dry weather or cold/damp weather, wind, barrel tempreture. Not to mention shooter error, trigger pull, flinching...it is endless complex and fascinating. Cheers!

[Dreygar (DayZ) 178]

I like to hold my figer up the furthest away wall in the room. Then I 'aim' 1cm to the left. I imagine walking in a straight line for both points and how far apart they would be over the course of 100 meters.

Be a few mils off on your compass. Land navigation days were fun, just don't let someone forget to calculate the difference in true north/magnetic north.

[xfortune 91]

Also, you can't really look around corners. You can do similar to what you can do in real life, peek around corner. If you want to look, you have to get in a position where you can be killed easily anyway.

False. You can sit behind cover and look around without ever being in danger of being shot. Over walls, around bushes/trees, etc

[Jony_RocketInMyPocket 172]

I think it should be up to the individual States to decide their policy on this issue.

[DragoKnight 5]

Well at the moment the 1st person is only around 90 degrees and the real humans FOV 180 the reason Rocket still kept the 3rd person is that you would get closer to 180 degrees. I think we should keep the 3rd person unless they increase the FOV for 1st person.

[archisb 0]

Of course First Person will be more realistic but other than forcing users to play First Person DayZ can have both First as well as Third Person. Maybe DayZ can have achivements and special items/weapons unlocks if person play Dayz for certain period in First Person. Just a suggestion. I love First Person as it is more realistic and DayZ is based on realism. Make it more realistic but also keeping other players in mind, keep Third person option too.

[nikiller 122]

hi,

I'm for the first person view only because it adds to the realism and tension. In other hand, that's good to let people play as they like. The actual server system (regular, veteran, expert) is good for that.

Here's few hints if you want to be more confortable with first person view:

- Manually increase your FOV to 80-90. tutorial

- turn off the head bob in game option. main menu >> option >> game option >> head bob.

- Learn to use the free look key (left Alt)

- The best solution IMHO is to buy a track IR.

Some vids with track IR

cya.

Nikiller.

[wolfstriked 143]

I put free look key to SHIFT(space bar works well also) as its easier to hit and you should be looking round constantly.

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

it's funny how people keep repeating the same arguments over and over trying to drown other opinions or actual suggestions. seems like in this forum every suggestion thread is a poll where the "louder" faction "wins".

the argument with the 180 degrees is just ridiculous. in any other 1st person game noone would complain about it being unrealistic. people are just spoiled by arma's free-look combined with 3rd person and just the thought of that 360/24/7 awareness being taken away from makes them scream out nonsense in fear.

most of you guys just can't take the extra tension this would add.

and saying 3rd person view is more realistic because of the view angle is just a joke. the point is that with third person you get a camera behind the player which you can move to places that aren't actually visible to your character's eyes. you can cheat with that. period. so what is more realistic now?

as i said before tweak the 3rd person view so it's less exploitable. i made some suggestions before maybe people can add to that instead of repeating the same shit over and over again. it doesn't make it true if you keep saying it...

[JohnDoer 11]

I believe the game was Command and Conquer:Renegade, you could go into third person but the camera for what the computer renders stays in your head. So seeing players around a wall was not possible even in third person. Something like this needs to be done that way all the bitching and moaning about third person can be taken care of.

[wormholes556 34]

Gameplay> realism

You cannot see shit when in first person, when I am in a fire fight, I am 1st person, when trying to navigate, I use 3rd so I don't get a headache from the bobbing when you walk. I would like to remind u this is a game, not a simulator

No....A simulator is EXACTLY what it is, idiot. see this is what i hate ArmA 2 has become, people start playing it like battlefield and have no understanding of any of the ArmA's

Edited November 19, 2012 by Pte.Robinson-6th AB-

[wormholes556 34]

but yeah, i definately think that 3rd person should be removed, and maybe the FOV should be widened by default for the people who don't know how to change it. TBH there is no real reason that anyone could argue against this idea unless they are just essentially being lazy, it ruins emmersion and you can effectively cheat with, see round corners, over buildings etc. This along with the Waypoint issue are two very simple things which could be removed, but would benfit the immersion of the mod by a shotload.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Pte.Robinson-6th AB-

[dallas 5195]

Before we decide what ArmA has become, we also have to remember ArmA has had 3rd person since it was called Operation Flashpoint in 2001.

[badbenson (DayZ) 38]

that's true but in arma the focus was never on PvP. the point is that people act like if it's impossible to play in 1st-person which is just straight up bullshit.

[trichome (DayZ) 198]

No you don't need it. And besides Dayz's third person its a glorified wall hack. It should never of been in the mod in the first place.